TR Editors' blog

Stem Cell Funding Restricted Once Again

A federal ruling temporarily blocks expanded funding for embryonic stem cell research.

Emily Singer 08/24/2010

  • 6 Comments

Scientists studying embryonic stem cells will soon feel the funding noose tightening once again, thanks to a new ruling that temporarily blocks an executive order to expand access to federal funds. President Obama's order, made last year, reversed restrictions put in place in 2001 by President Bush, which limited federal funding of embryonic stem cell research to stem cell lines that had already been created. These restrictions were seen as a huge hindrance to the pace of research, forcing scientists who wanted to do cutting edge experiments to seek private funding. Many scientists chose to avoid the field altogether, and those who pursued it often had to create new labs that mirrored existing ones in order to carry out the privately funded research.

According to the New York Times,

The ruling came as a shock to scientists at the National Institutes of Health and at universities across the country, which had viewed the Obama administration's new policy and the grants provided under it as settled law. Scientists scrambled Monday evening to assess the ruling's immediate impact on their work.

"I have had to tell everyone in my lab that when they feed their cells tomorrow morning, they better use media that has not been funded by the federal government," said Dr. George Q. Daley, director of the stem cell transplantation program at Children's Hospital Boston, referring to food given to cells. "This ruling means an immediate disruption of dozens of labs doing this work since the Obama administration made its order."

In his ruling, Chief Judge Royce C. Lamberth of Federal District Court for the District of Columbia wrote that his temporary injunction returned federal policy to the "status quo," but few officials, scientists or lawyers in the case were sure Monday night what that meant.

According to a report in the Boston Globe,

Additionally, the judge ruled that former MIT researcher Dr. James L. Sherley and other scientists who study less controversial adult stem cells would face "actual, imminent injury'' because of the competition for federal dollars that would be stoked by expansion of research into embryonic stem cells.

The lawsuit was brought about by Sherley, now at the Boston Biomedical Research Institute, and Theresa Deisher of AVM Biotechnology, headquartered in Seattle, among others. According to the Boston Globe, the original suit included other plaintiffs, but the court had earlier found that they did not have legal standing to proceed. One of those was Nightlight Christian Adoptions, which supports the adoption of embryos for implantation. Sherley and others argue that "it is immoral for scientists to work with cells derived from embryos because they have to be destroyed to extract stem cells."

Obama's 2009 order did not lift restrictions on research that destroys a human embryo, which Congress prohibited from federal funding in a 1996 law known as the Dickey-Wicker Amendment. (Creating new stem cell lines requires the destruction of embryos.) Judge Lamberth called on this law in the ruling.

According to the Times,

The judge ruled that the Obama administration's policy was illegal because the administration's distinction between work that leads to the destruction of embryos -- which cannot be financed by the federal government under the current policy -- and the financing of work using stem cells created through embryonic destruction was meaningless. In his ruling, he referred to embryonic stem cell research as E.S.C.

"If one step or 'piece of research' of an E.S.C. research project results in the destruction of an embryo, the entire project is precluded from receiving federal funding," wrote Judge Lamberth, who was appointed to the federal bench in 1987 by President Ronald Reagan.

In other words, the neat lines that the government had drawn between the process of embryonic destruction and the results of that destruction are not valid, the judge ruled.

For scientists, the problem with the judge's reasoning is that it may render all scientific work regarding embryonic stem cells illegal -- including work allowed under the more restrictive policy adopted by President George W. Bush in 2001.

Print

Close Comments

To comment, please sign in or register

Forgot my password

timetested

5 Comments

  • 537 Days Ago
  • 08/24/2010

Stem cell ethics

There is a component of stem cell ethics that never seems to be discussed.  That is the ethics of using fetal stem cells is therapy.  Fetal stem cells are foreign cells that would be treated as invaders by the body.  In use fetal stem cells have resulted in cancers in recipients bodies.  Treatment using fetal stem cells would lead to a lifelong dependence on very expensive anti-rejection drugs.  These compromise the immune system, and would add tremendous cost to an already out of control health care system.

Fetal stem cells were originally used because they were pluripotent.  Adult stem cells were assumed to lack the ability to change to different types of tissues, thus limiting their therapeutic use.  Over time this assumption has proven to be unfounded.  Adult stem cells are viewed as close to pluripotent. 

If stem cells are harvested from the hosts body, they can be used therapeutically with no fear of rejection.  This would eliminate the need to take anti-rejection drugs with all their negative consequences.  Granted this would result in a huge reduction in potential drug sales and profits, but it would be good for the patient and the medical community.

The net is that fetal stem cell research is probably not going to lead to anything of therapeutic value.  Ethics would say that money spent on fetal stem cell research would be better spent developing real adult stem cell therapies.  Ethics would also seem to say that attempting to use fetal stem cells in a foreign host would subject that person to risks that cannot be justified.

Reply

ms

190 Comments

  • 536 Days Ago
  • 08/25/2010

Re: Stem cell ethics

The rejection problem could be solved by replacing the nucleus of a fertilized egg with that of the intended recipient. Of course, that is a form of cloning, which is currently illegal. And it would preclude some uses of fetal stem cells, such as correcting a genetic flaw (unless the flaw could first be corrected in the new nucleus by some means).

Reply

bobbyjoeself

1 Comment

  • 537 Days Ago
  • 08/24/2010

stemcell  funding

Look to the history of JUDGES and ask yourself have they always helped mankind.   What would the great minds of time tell us.

Reply

boustrephon

49 Comments

  • 536 Days Ago
  • 08/25/2010

Stem Cell Research Funding

I have to admit that I am not very well read up on this topic, but I remember that the main reason given why embryonic stem cell research had to take place in the face of ethical objections was that we couldn't get stem cells any other way and that Parkinson's disease could only be treated with them. Since then we have learned that other stem cells can be created and that, in some cases at least, they work better, and can even work for Parkinson's. Can anyone enlighten me as to the current arguments for permitting it? I am not completely opposed to it, but I am not prepared to unquestioningly permit experimentation on human embryos.

Reply

ms

190 Comments

  • 536 Days Ago
  • 08/25/2010

Re: Stem Cell Research Funding

Recent research seems to indicate that the induced pluripotent stem cells are not quite equivalent to embryonic stem cells; in particular, they retain some imprinting from the adult cells they were derived from. To investigate the significance of this difference, we presumably need to investigate how embryonic stem cells behave compared to the induced stem cells.

Reply

Brewsir@pol.net

1 Comment

  • 536 Days Ago
  • 08/25/2010

Stem Cell funding

Included in the opponents to the use of stem cells is the so called religious right, a conglomerate that is duplicitous, at the very least. I am yet to find an area in which I do not oppose their self described scientific beliefs. I would be a lot more comfortable if the medical, pharmaceutical and political environment had a recent history that included fewer lies, misrepresentations and disregard for human wellbeing.  There have always been opponents to progress and that has not always been a negative.  We must,however, be able to discern the truth even if it means moving the research overseas.

Reply

About

Insights, opinions, and our editors' analysis of the latest in emerging technologies.

Subscribe to the TR Editors' blog RSS Feed

Advertisement
Advertisement

Facebook

Advertisement